Obama's First Test

William S Lind proposes that Obama's First Test:

...in the national security arena is likely to come not from al Qaeda or Iran or the Taliban but from within his own Democratic Party. Powerful constituencies in that party, the Feminists and the gays, will demand that he open the ground combat arms to women and allow acknowledged homosexuals to serve in the U.S. armed forces. If he agrees to either of these demands, or both, he will begin his Presidency by doing immense damage to the fighting ability of the America military.

Emphasis Mine

His argument proceeds from the Capitalist understanding of sexuality:

One of the most basic human factors is that men fight to prove they are real men. They join fighting organizations, whether the U.S. Army or U.S. Marine Corps or MS-13, because those organizations are made up of fighting men. Their membership is a badge of honor that says, "We're not sissies or pansies. We are men who fight, serving alongside other men who fight." That tells others and themselves they are real men.

Emphasis Mine

His view of masculinity is confined to anti-feminineness. It is not a positive definition rather defining maleness as not being something. Plus the definition requires that males exhibit aggression to prove themselves.

So the military exists to define and prove masculinity rather to protect society. If a conflict should arise between being masculine and protecting society, then I would assume that Lind would prefer masculinity be asserted.

The idea of the military in a Capitalist society is that of a profession rather than a duty. Military people are a separate caste in society with their own values and needs.

In a Communist society, military obligations apply to everyone. Society is protected by the members of society itself. There is no need for a subset to be charged with these obligations. Membership in society requires that military obligations be undertaken. This is similar to Robert Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers that citizens defend the body politic except that I propose that all are citizens and therefore obliged to do military service, rather than military service grants citizenship.

Again, we come up against what is maleness? Is it anti-femaleness, or something else? If I do not display the attributes of a woman, am I therefore male?

Is this a dumb question? Does maleness matter? Rather should we concentrate what it means to be human, and leave gender as a biological fact not a cultural construct? I am human because I live in a society and contribute to its culture by propagating its values and suppressing harmful actions. To do so requires that I perform my duty to that society through contributing to the economy that sustains the society.

I think Lind is wrong but his is a Capitalist opinion that requires a military caste to defend the interests of the Capitalist against other Capitalists and the Proletariat. He cannot have a citizen-based military because they would turn their guns against the purported rulers.